they'll get you
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 14,657
- Reaction score
- 57,074
I agree. RUN EM RUN!
VA - Johnny Depp's defamation case against ex Amber Heard, who countersued #13
- Thread starter Reader
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
New Posts
-
Woman Charged With Murder, Dismemberment of Husband Missing Since July 2023- Latest: TootsieFootsie
-
FL FL - John Clifton Ballenger, 20, Satellite Beach, 26 Jun 1977- Latest: Diane Redfern
- Status
I agree. RUN EM RUN!
hopingicanhelp
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 880
- Reaction score
- 2,826
I hope that he has already...? I find it interesting the whole issue of bugged Teslas came about, and it made me wonder if EM had also ever been surreptitiously recorded. Were they actually bugged? If so, was it in response to something? Did he suspect a grift was underway? I should stop hypothesizing and hijacking this thread, but I'm left with so.many.questions about patterns of behavior...I wish SG had mentioned the sanctions due to AH's refusal to turn over requested evidence. But I wonder if that's supposed to be under seal or gagged -- does anyone know?
She is incapable of loving anyone except herself. I do mean that literally.
tmar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2017
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 49,932
She is wanting to go to trial AGAIN, as then again she is in the limelight.
How about, 'letting all this go'.....no way with AH.
tmar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2017
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 49,932
Perhaps, 'collecting money' with these attacks, will make her rich, plus loads of attention.
She will continue until she is ignored, 'the 'well dries up', and is stopped.
Imagine what JD experienced !!!!!
Allabouttrial
Until you've walked a mile in someone else's shoes
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2018
- Messages
- 6,381
- Reaction score
- 54,137
Amber Heard interview
Part 2
Interviewer: There's a text message where Johnny promises total global humiliation for you. Do you feel like that came true?
Amber: I know he promised it. I testified to this, I'm not a good victim, I get it. I'm not a likeable victim, I'm not a perfect victim, but when I testified I asked the jury just to see me as human and hear his own words, which is a promise to do this, it feels as though he has.
Interviewer: Having been found libel are you nervous, as we are here today, about what you can say now?
Amber: Of course. I took for granted what I assumed was my right to speak.
Interviewer: Do you feel like you could be sued again by him for defamation?
Amber: I'm scared that no matter what I do, no matter what I say or how I say it, every step that I take will present another opportunity for this sort of silencing. Which is what I guess a defamation lawsuit is meant to do. It's meant to take your voice.
Interviewer: Life had seemingly moved on and you decide to write an op-ed. Why did you do that?
Amber: Because the op-ed wasn't about my relationship with Johnny.
Interviewer: But it alluded to him, it was unmistakable.
Amber: You know what the op-ed was about was, you know, me loaning my voice to a bigger cultural conversation that we were having at the time.
Interviewer: Did you worry - gosh I'd love to be a person weighing in on these cultural issues, that that's going to stir this all up again?
Amber: I obviously knew. It was important for me not to make it about him or to do anything like defame him. I had lawyers, teams of lawyers, review all the drafts of this. (lawyers fault...OBVIOUSLY
).
Interviewer: When you wrote this op-ed, it was at the height of metoo. Legions of powerful men being cancelled, losing their jobs. Did you want that to happen to Johnny Depp?
Amber: Of course not, of course not. It wasn't about him.
(Amber is asked about May, 16th and the restraining order).
Amber: This was a hoax according to his team. Why didn't I co-operate with the police? As I've testified before and I will stand by until my dying day, I didn't want to co-operate with them. I didn't want this to be out, I didn't want this to be known. I didn't want to co-operate with them because I didn't want to get him in trouble. If it was a hoax, I could have done that.
Interviewer: But 5 days later you went to court and it came out.
Amber: 5 days later I made the decision to stand up for myself and protect myself. You can't get a restraining order in private, which of course I didn't understand the night when the cops were called.
Interviewer: An employee of TMZ testified at court and said that TMZ was tipped off about when you were going to be going to the courthouse, and what side of your face bruises would be apparent. Did you tip off TMZ?
Amber: I was going to say, he certainly didn't get tipped off by me or anyone I know. Why would they?
Interviewer: You asked no-one to do that?
Amber: As I testified to before, it had nothing to do with me.
Interviewer: There were different instances that you testified to, and the Depp legal team would put up pictures of you, publicaly, right after that, or in the days following and say "why are there no bruises".
Amber: Again, it's that thing if you have bruising, if you have injuries, "it's fake". If you don't have any then you aren't injured.
Interviewer: You had promised to donate 7 million dollars of your divorce settlement to charity. It was revealed at trial that you haven't done so yet, however, they played a tape where you state on the air that you have donated it. Do you think that raised questions as to your credibility with the jury?
Amber: I made a pledge and that pledge is made over time by it's nature and...
Interviewer: You say "I donated". You know that everybody thinks that you've donated it, not that you'd pledged to. So the jurors sitting there, do you think like that was you getting caught in a lie?
Amber: I don't know, because so much of the...I feel like so much of the trial was meant to cast aspersions on who I am as a human. My credibility, to call me a liar in every way you can...
Interviewer: That was the trial. It was a credibility contest, and that was it.
Amber: This is another one of the examples, where if you pull back and you think about it, I shouldn't have to have donated it, in an effort for it to be believed. I shouldn't have to have ear marked the entirety of that in order to have....
Interviewer: You shouldn't have, but once you said you did...
Amber: Right, which is where it was intended to go.
Interviewer: How do see your future now?
Amber: I get to be a mum, like full-time you know, where I'm not having to juggle calls with lawyers.
Interviewer: One day you may want to tell your daughter about this, or have to tell your daughter about everything that you've gone through. What would you want to say?
Amber: I think no matter what, it will mean something. I did the right thing, I did everything I could to stand up for myself and the truth.
Interviewer: On the first day of the trial you issued a statement, and part of the statement said "I still have love for Johnny".
Amber: Yes.
Interviewer: Is that still true?
Amber: Yes.
Interviewer: After everything?
Amber: Absolutely, absolutely. I love him. I loved him with all my heart and I tried the best I could to make a deeply broken relationship work, and I couldn't. I have no bad feelings or ill will towards him at all. I know that might be hard to understand, or it might be really easy to understand. If you've ever loved anyone, it should be easy.
Part 2
Interviewer: There's a text message where Johnny promises total global humiliation for you. Do you feel like that came true?
Amber: I know he promised it. I testified to this, I'm not a good victim, I get it. I'm not a likeable victim, I'm not a perfect victim, but when I testified I asked the jury just to see me as human and hear his own words, which is a promise to do this, it feels as though he has.
Interviewer: Having been found libel are you nervous, as we are here today, about what you can say now?
Amber: Of course. I took for granted what I assumed was my right to speak.
Interviewer: Do you feel like you could be sued again by him for defamation?
Amber: I'm scared that no matter what I do, no matter what I say or how I say it, every step that I take will present another opportunity for this sort of silencing. Which is what I guess a defamation lawsuit is meant to do. It's meant to take your voice.
Interviewer: Life had seemingly moved on and you decide to write an op-ed. Why did you do that?
Amber: Because the op-ed wasn't about my relationship with Johnny.
Interviewer: But it alluded to him, it was unmistakable.
Amber: You know what the op-ed was about was, you know, me loaning my voice to a bigger cultural conversation that we were having at the time.
Interviewer: Did you worry - gosh I'd love to be a person weighing in on these cultural issues, that that's going to stir this all up again?
Amber: I obviously knew. It was important for me not to make it about him or to do anything like defame him. I had lawyers, teams of lawyers, review all the drafts of this. (lawyers fault...OBVIOUSLY
).Interviewer: When you wrote this op-ed, it was at the height of metoo. Legions of powerful men being cancelled, losing their jobs. Did you want that to happen to Johnny Depp?
Amber: Of course not, of course not. It wasn't about him.
(Amber is asked about May, 16th and the restraining order).
Amber: This was a hoax according to his team. Why didn't I co-operate with the police? As I've testified before and I will stand by until my dying day, I didn't want to co-operate with them. I didn't want this to be out, I didn't want this to be known. I didn't want to co-operate with them because I didn't want to get him in trouble. If it was a hoax, I could have done that.
Interviewer: But 5 days later you went to court and it came out.
Amber: 5 days later I made the decision to stand up for myself and protect myself. You can't get a restraining order in private, which of course I didn't understand the night when the cops were called.
Interviewer: An employee of TMZ testified at court and said that TMZ was tipped off about when you were going to be going to the courthouse, and what side of your face bruises would be apparent. Did you tip off TMZ?
Amber: I was going to say, he certainly didn't get tipped off by me or anyone I know. Why would they?
Interviewer: You asked no-one to do that?
Amber: As I testified to before, it had nothing to do with me.
Interviewer: There were different instances that you testified to, and the Depp legal team would put up pictures of you, publicaly, right after that, or in the days following and say "why are there no bruises".
Amber: Again, it's that thing if you have bruising, if you have injuries, "it's fake". If you don't have any then you aren't injured.
Interviewer: You had promised to donate 7 million dollars of your divorce settlement to charity. It was revealed at trial that you haven't done so yet, however, they played a tape where you state on the air that you have donated it. Do you think that raised questions as to your credibility with the jury?
Amber: I made a pledge and that pledge is made over time by it's nature and...
Interviewer: You say "I donated". You know that everybody thinks that you've donated it, not that you'd pledged to. So the jurors sitting there, do you think like that was you getting caught in a lie?
Amber: I don't know, because so much of the...I feel like so much of the trial was meant to cast aspersions on who I am as a human. My credibility, to call me a liar in every way you can...
Interviewer: That was the trial. It was a credibility contest, and that was it.
Amber: This is another one of the examples, where if you pull back and you think about it, I shouldn't have to have donated it, in an effort for it to be believed. I shouldn't have to have ear marked the entirety of that in order to have....
Interviewer: You shouldn't have, but once you said you did...
Amber: Right, which is where it was intended to go.
Interviewer: How do see your future now?
Amber: I get to be a mum, like full-time you know, where I'm not having to juggle calls with lawyers.
Interviewer: One day you may want to tell your daughter about this, or have to tell your daughter about everything that you've gone through. What would you want to say?
Amber: I think no matter what, it will mean something. I did the right thing, I did everything I could to stand up for myself and the truth.
Interviewer: On the first day of the trial you issued a statement, and part of the statement said "I still have love for Johnny".
Amber: Yes.
Interviewer: Is that still true?
Amber: Yes.
Interviewer: After everything?
Amber: Absolutely, absolutely. I love him. I loved him with all my heart and I tried the best I could to make a deeply broken relationship work, and I couldn't. I have no bad feelings or ill will towards him at all. I know that might be hard to understand, or it might be really easy to understand. If you've ever loved anyone, it should be easy.
<modsnip: Quoted/referenced post was removed>I have followed Johnny for many years and I will continue to for his humble nature alone. He also happens to be an incredible artist across the board. He is a true poet, tremendous actor, passionate director, soulful painter and musician. He doesn’t do anything halfway. Those are his professional attributes. I can’t make a broad list in the personal realm, we find those out mainly through others. He is just as much a legend off screen in the ways of his heart. It’s difficult to put it in a word, though ‘Treasure’ comes to mind. He loves people in a way that is angelic.
The words spoken about him from others have a common thread. See my post upthread on his birthday tribute that was recorded 2 years ago: friends, colleagues, family, peers, employees and rando’s were all asked to say something about him. This was done individually over time and yet the common thread is noteworthy.
@Anxala I don’t know if you watched the trial. If you didn’t I recommend it to see his humility daily for 6 weeks. I watched it in its entirety but even now I’m going through an independent feed I found “The little things that happened throughout the trial that we didn’t get to see” His humble spirit and authentic kindness is astounding.
Not sure if you saw his childhood friend who testified “Isaac” Johnny rescued him from living in a garage in a single day. Set him up in one of his Columbia Street penthouses. In one day his life was turned around, but Johnny also invested in getting Isaac the right tools he needed as an artist. Including having gallery exhibits attended by his celeb friends to get him recognized in the proper client base. Johnny still supports him and he is living in another property because Columbia street was sold.
One of his UK security guards testified. AH counsel asked him if Johnny gave him gifts. I suppose they were going to say that’s why he works for Johnny. Elaine said “isnt it upwards to $8500 dollars right”? Martin said “no it’s a lot more than that”
She expected him to not be forthcoming, he was humble and honest.
<modsnip>
Last edited:
Amber Heard interview
Part 2
Interviewer: There's a text message where Johnny promises total global humiliation for you. Do you feel like that came true?
Amber: I know he promised it. I testified to this, I'm not a good victim, I get it. I'm not a likeable victim, I'm not a perfect victim, but when I testified I asked the jury just to see me as human and hear his own words, which is a promise to do this, it feels as though he has.
Interviewer: Having been found libel are you nervous, as we are here today, about what you can say now?
Amber: Of course. I took for granted what I assumed was my right to speak.
Interviewer: Do you feel like you could be sued again by him for defamation?
Amber: I'm scared that no matter what I do, no matter what I say or how I say it, every step that I take will present another opportunity for this sort of silencing. Which is what I guess a defamation lawsuit is meant to do. It's meant to take your voice.
Interviewer: Life had seemingly moved on and you decide to write an op-ed. Why did you do that?
Amber: Because the op-ed wasn't about my relationship with Johnny.
Interviewer: But it alluded to him, it was unmistakable.
Amber: You know what the op-ed was about was, you know, me loaning my voice to a bigger cultural conversation that we were having at the time.
Interviewer: Did you worry - gosh I'd love to be a person weighing in on these cultural issues, that that's going to stir this all up again?
Amber: I obviously knew. It was important for me not to make it about him or to do anything like defame him. I had lawyers, teams of lawyers, review all the drafts of this. (lawyers fault...OBVIOUSLY
Interviewer: When you wrote this op-ed, it was at the height of metoo. Legions of powerful men being cancelled, losing their jobs. Did you want that to happen to Johnny Depp?
Amber: Of course not, of course not. It wasn't about him.
(Amber is asked about May, 16th and the restraining order).
Amber: This was a hoax according to his team. Why didn't I co-operate with the police? As I've testified before and I will stand by until my dying day, I didn't want to co-operate with them. I didn't want this to be out, I didn't want this to be known. I didn't want to co-operate with them because I didn't want to get him in trouble. If it was a hoax, I could have done that.
Interviewer: But 5 days later you went to court and it came out.
Amber: 5 days later I made the decision to stand up for myself and protect myself. You can't get a restraining order in private, which of course I didn't understand the night when the cops were called.
Interviewer: An employee of TMZ testified at court and said that TMZ was tipped off about when you were going to be going to the courthouse, and what side of your face bruises would be apparent. Did you tip off TMZ?
Amber: I was going to say, he certainly didn't get tipped off by me or anyone I know. Why would they?
Interviewer: You asked no-one to do that?
Amber: As I testified to before, it had nothing to do with me.
Interviewer: There were different instances that you testified to, and the Depp legal team would put up pictures of you, publicaly, right after that, or in the days following and say "why are there no bruises".
Amber: Again, it's that thing if you have bruising, if you have injuries, "it's fake". If you don't have any then you aren't injured.
Interviewer: You had promised to donate 7 million dollars of your divorce settlement to charity. It was revealed at trial that you haven't done so yet, however, they played a tape where you state on the air that you have donated it. Do you think that raised questions as to your credibility with the jury?
Amber: I made a pledge and that pledge is made over time by it's nature and...
Interviewer: You say "I donated". You know that everybody thinks that you've donated it, not that you'd pledged to. So the jurors sitting there, do you think like that was you getting caught in a lie?
Amber: I don't know, because so much of the...I feel like so much of the trial was meant to cast aspersions on who I am as a human. My credibility, to call me a liar in every way you can...
Interviewer: That was the trial. It was a credibility contest, and that was it.
Amber: This is another one of the examples, where if you pull back and you think about it, I shouldn't have to have donated it, in an effort for it to be believed. I shouldn't have to have ear marked the entirety of that in order to have....
Interviewer: You shouldn't have, but once you said you did...
Amber: Right, which is where it was intended to go.
Interviewer: How do see your future now?
Amber: I get to be a mum, like full-time you know, where I'm not having to juggle calls with lawyers.
Interviewer: One day you may want to tell your daughter about this, or have to tell your daughter about everything that you've gone through. What would you want to say?
Amber: I think no matter what, it will mean something. I did the right thing, I did everything I could to stand up for myself and the truth.
Interviewer: On the first day of the trial you issued a statement, and part of the statement said "I still have love for Johnny".
Amber: Yes.
Interviewer: Is that still true?
Amber: Yes.
Interviewer: After everything?
Amber: Absolutely, absolutely. I love him. I loved him with all my heart and I tried the best I could to make a deeply broken relationship work, and I couldn't. I have no bad feelings or ill will towards him at all. I know that might be hard to understand, or it might be really easy to understand. If you've ever loved anyone, it should be easy.
Are they going to say “what did you mean in this clip where you said the op-ed was about Johnny“? And all the other lies?
Its really unfair to be able to lie in an interview without the information not being vetted by the network. I realize it’s all about the money but overlooking the dangerous facts & dynamics is basically condoning it.
See post #888 and #889
BBM.. this is especially worrisome. At the end of today's interview segment, Savannah said the Dateline full interview will include evidence not allowed in the trial. Amber claims this "evidence" proves her story.
Those that have followed the case/trail will know about Amber's doctored texts and photos but for those just catching MSM coverage might believe it was unjust for her "evidence" to not be allowed.
hopingicanhelp
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 880
- Reaction score
- 2,826
For crying out loud...
I sure hope if they're going to do that they will also interview an attorney/legal expert who can provide background as to WHY Judge P might have excluded (not "suppressed") the evidence, why it was not appropriate, why it might support AH having reported an incident to others though does not meet the test of observed evidence, etc. I hope they will, but I worry that they might pull the "we reached out to [insert someone involved in THIS trial] and no comment..."
If they don't do those things, this is how AH pulls back more public support. JMO
concernedmother
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,372
- Reaction score
- 8,849
Im sure Camille and Ben are watching all this play out. She may hang herself good. Then Boom. Next few days will get interesting. jmo.
They have to be on it, they are chosen family. I see them devoted beyond legal representation. True emotion was displayed between them. Johnny has that effect on people.
concernedmother
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,372
- Reaction score
- 8,849
He may be too in over his head to run. jmo.
Ontario Mom
stay safe ♥ be kind
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,896
- Reaction score
- 138,340
Can you imagine...
going to the media with a fantastic story of violence and SA,
then being sued for defamation because your story was a full on lie,
then losing in court, the jury agreeing that your evidence is lame, and your testimony is unconvincing,
then going right back to the media, and repeating the very same defamation lies all over again?
These are not the actions of a mentally balanced person.
jmo
going to the media with a fantastic story of violence and SA,
then being sued for defamation because your story was a full on lie,
then losing in court, the jury agreeing that your evidence is lame, and your testimony is unconvincing,
then going right back to the media, and repeating the very same defamation lies all over again?
These are not the actions of a mentally balanced person.
jmo
Is anyone else getting the feeling that someone else ( EM?) is encouraging her behind the scenes to try to re-run the trial in the court of public appearances, and in so doing either humiliate JD or make up lies degrading him, only for their own personal benefit?
There has to be a way to stop her from using the media to violate the oaths that were all taken, and bypass the legal and sincere effort by the judge, the court, and the jurors to allow fair testimony.
Name a media outlet that is supporting this and I will be happy to boycott them.
concernedmother
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,372
- Reaction score
- 8,849
Maybe she is thinking that if he sues her again, it would be like a retrial for her. But I think if that happened, it would be about him winning his case from this point forward. Regardless, she is pretty much sealing her fate in the acting world. jmo.
hopingicanhelp
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 880
- Reaction score
- 2,826
I don't know that EM is involved with her any more than he would absolutely have to be, IMO, and I got the feeling he wanted to stay completely out of it. However, I'm sure attorneys have advised her about the difficulty of an appeal and that her PR team may have told her the only way to "win" is in the court of public opinion. They may be borrowing from JD's playbook, as he said from the beginning that he simply wanted to be heard--every prior attempt was denied or focused on negativity in his life. Of course, he was restricted by the same NDA that AH was, so he also had to be careful in what he said--until he sued her and had a legal avenue to lay it out.
Despite JD's support and the "vitriol" toward AH at this point, here is what concerns me about AH in the future...
1. A good portion of the population still has trouble accepting the concept of male victims of abuse
2. Everyone came after Disney & WB after JD's win for dropping him -- WB and others (can't remember who her latest project was through) may be hesitant to drop AH for the same reason. They may be less than eager to hire her in the future, but may refuse to drop her. They may be saying to themselves, hey, she's appealing, let's not react to anything until we see how this plays out.
3. She could get hired by those pushing an ideology/narrative over acting ability or box office draw -- they might hire her purely to provoke controversy.
As far as MSM goes, AH kind of has JD over a barrel if viewers are not as discerning as the trial-watching public.
1. If he doesn't respond, the public will ask, "Well? Has he got nothing to say? Hmmm, suspicious."
2. If he does respond, her PR team can say, "SEE? He just can't leave her alone! Why won't he leave her alone? He's obsessed with her, he's harassing her! She can't afford to pay him! She's a single mother! Hasn't he done enough?"
3. If he just lets his attorneys respond--even if simply negotiates terms for her to keep her trap shut--her PR can still do all of #2 above PLUS matriculate "sources close to" AH saying "under the condition of anonymity" that JD has "silenced" her.
The only way for him to win is to pretend she doesn't exist, live a good life, do the projects he enjoys, and hire extra security. Hopefully, AH will burn herself, but she may have to burn more bridges first. JMO.
- Status